既是说整体思路是由恶向善发展的，主控思想是说一个黑人警官途径一个小镇，发生一起黑人企业家被杀的案件，黑人警官被无端指控后，反而通过层层线索发现了白人杀人的秘密。

之所以要这样划分，因为那个时候黑人还没有丝毫受尊重的可能性。影片中正邪两方在开场乃至影片的前三分之二都是警察！这一点让人玩味。

木头警员办案潦草，好色懒散，只遵循长官的吩咐草率了断，见到黑人就立为凶手，不料这个黑人也是警察，并且是邻市的专家。

黑人专家的性格设置很恰当，话少，做事细心，自信，正义，但脾气恰到好处，在当时背景下的黑人脾气不会太大，还夹杂着一丝隐忍，不生事端。但不失尊严

警长性格暴戾，身材臃肿，蛮横，其实内心孤独，并且是讲道理之人，可惜办案经验不足。

而在影片开始 木头夜巡去路边小店吃甜点，开店的伙计就喜欢戏耍他，对他丝毫不尊重，这一细节的铺垫不料成了最后的解锁器……这样的伏笔也丝毫让人意料不到。

专家（以下都称此名，因为他的名字叫virtual....）的人物弧光是他必须要留在这个镇上协助破案，而一开始他就被莫名其妙指控，只因为他是黑人，这个过程怎么样完成呢。我们试着从我上述性格特征里去寻找可用关键词：正义。正义可以联想到善良，公正，他越发的饱满立体起来了，那他会为了怎样的事留下呢？毕竟这是个对黑人尤其不尊重的地方，没有任何理由留下，此案件也丝毫不管他事。那么就需要让他看到了不公正的事，看到了弱势群体的一方，或者再来一剂强心针吧，回到剧本反复表现的、不可忽视的“种族歧视”上来，让他受到其他同类的鼓舞，或者帮助---所以镇上有黑人为他提供了免费住宿和车辆，并以他帮助自己生活的家园破案为骄傲。

那么他看到了何种不公正的事呢？这个太好处理了，他是一名专家，一名破案专家怎么能够容忍自己眼睁睁看着抓错人，把无辜之人加之莫须有的罪名——毕竟他还是一名正义的专家！

所以我们需要一个冤大头，他仅仅是路过尸体旁边，因为游手好闲前科难改拿走了尸体旁边鼓鼓的钱包罢了。这个角色就产生了，第二个错的嫌疑人——外号虾皮的白人小伙。而虾皮不能是主犯 怎么去说明？这个片段略俗气，但我的脑子至今想不出更为简单又合理的方式，虾皮是个左撇子，尸体被重击是右后脑勺。这里需要有一个铺垫，就是既然如此简单的线索，我们的胖警长为何发现不了？因为他相当不善于观察，甚至连自己的双胞胎下属——看闸门的胖子，哥哥和弟弟都分辨不出。

胖下属糊弄警长说自己是双胞胎哥哥的这个细节让人拍案叫绝。

此时的警长面子也挂不住，因为专家尚未得到他的信服，所以这是警长第一次说要他返回，拒绝他的帮助。

荧幕前的观众和警长都更需要一些线索更加确信凶手不是虾皮，——毕竟就凭借左右手的细节有一些草率了。那么在警长抵触专家插手此事的前提下，专家如何和虾皮取得进一步的沟通？他和虾皮必须在同一空间，虾皮要去往何处？只有牢房，因为警长态度坚决并且勃然大怒。那么显然，专家也要进牢房，或者再有什么理由能让虾皮被放出来？然后再跟专家一五一十的坦白？这太难了。

专家要进牢房，这个听起来又精彩又新鲜，可是他如何进牢房，我们何不试试让他动手打人？不得不承认想到这里的时候思维受阻了…因为打人也不是个坏主意，但这样好像失去了一个强调人物性格的机会，专家既不是一个鲁莽动粗之人（最开始被捕的时候他丝毫没有生气和反抗，被人口头歧视是黑人的时候也从不）警长也不是一个不辩是非的人，我前面说了，他讲道理，只是水平差罢了。所以这个情节可谓一石二鸟，让专家手上拿着验尸报告，以如果警长坚持错判虾皮为要挟，声称这样的话就把验尸报告送给FBI，让“上头”来调查。既想亲自看到报告，又更不想在下属和上级眼前丢人的警长无奈之下把他和虾皮关进同一个牢房，也给了他单独审讯虾皮的机会，专家借此与虾皮和解（此先虾皮由于他是黑人而拒绝跟他说话）为下文虾皮提供堕胎处打了伏笔。

后来警长主动的释放也为警长和专家之间关系的缓和更进一步。看过报告的警长开始追着问关于验尸报告的一些问题，与此同时，专家对这里的办案方式也忍无可忍，他依旧没有想要继续插手此事。

留下的动机依然不足。我也在观影中完全忽略了一个不可忽视的角色……受害者高拔先生的妻子，她对丈夫的事一无所知，正义的专家见到了这个女人，告诉他了案件情况并对她产生怜惜（这是个黑人的妻子）。她的出现为一个情节推动给了绝对有效的助力，她对专家产生了坚定的直觉信任，打电话给当地市长专线，以家族投资市政工程为要挟，坚持要求市长特批留下专家。这一来，情节过半，故事弧光闪现了第一道——专家取得警长的信任，当事人家属的信任，并且是市长钦点的办案人。

Oscar’s BEST PICTURE obtainer, Canadian filmmaker Norman Jewison’s IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT pluckily wrestles with the racial tension through a black-skinned homicidal detective Virgil Tibbs (Poiter), hailed from Philadelphia but stands up like a sore thumb in a southern town Sparta in Mississippi, where a wealthy industrialist is murdered.

Virgil is wantonly brought to the local police station as the chief suspect in the first place, by a vacuously cocksure officer Sam Wood (Oates, conspicuously poses with an air of casual small-mindedness), a decision precociously conducted simply owing to Virgil’s skin color, albeit he is garbed in suit-and-tie, Sam instinctively deems this black guy is the murderer without even questioning him, assumes that he awaits fleeing in the train station at 3 a.m. Virgil remains cooperative under duress, only to manifest his ace in the hole with his police badge, in front of the sheriff Gillespie (Steiger), the first slap in the face.

While it seems arbitrary that Virgil's superior would patly ask him to assist the investigation by phone, but the sticking point soon boils down to Virgil's decision of leaving or staying (due to the rampant hostility from local peckerwoods), a seesaw game well played between Virgil and Gillespie, each turnabout marks a shifting progress in their respective cognition towards each other, in tandem with the ongoing police procedural. But admittedly the unfolding crime-solving routine doesn’t crop up completely creditable as the film’s renown attests. Virgil is way head and shoulders above his peers born with lighter-complexion, in certifying facts and sifting out clues (and might even be endowed with some psychic ability, otherwise how could he be so sure about Sam’s veered routine? A snag the film never cares to elucidate). The only foible is his preconceived bias, which is accountably shaped up by hardened racism he has to come in for on a daily base, and near the climax, he admits it frankly and timely swerves to the right track in teasing out the hidden perpetrator.

Tellingly, what makes the film"culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”, cited as its induction in the United States National Film Registry in 2002, is the palpably construction of the foe-to-friend transition between these two men, but not in the modality of indoctrination or spoon-feeding, today’s audience might find it beggar-belief to some egregiously blinkered presentation of racism (which could very much be the case as we twig half a century later, the canker has never ceased to incubate), however, not for one minute, we have to stretch our suspended disbelief in view of the two men’s mutual conflict-and-reconciliation, a sensibly crafted understanding-vanquishing-prejudice which can be related to every spectator, it is the very basic technique in storytelling: be relatable without resorting to simple preaching, but to round it out in all its integrity and empathy, it is another matter, in this sense, the film merits all the accolades it garners.

Rod Steiger won Oscar’s BEST ACTOR trophy for his bellowing imposition and everyday toiling amplified in high voltage, but in hindsight, it is hard not to attribute his triumph (at least to a degree) to the inexorable gesture of urgent political correctness. Sidney Poitier, by contrast, takes on a subtler but no less dramatic seething-and-smouldering performance to the fore in his trailblazing embodiment for his own race, a crusade he pulls his back into with unalloyed dignity and honesty. Lee Grant, in a small but pivotal role as the newly widowed rich wife from north, choreographs a most revealing pas-de-deux with Poitier in their first scene together, gives a chilling vibe of the congenital racism even from those who are ostensibly liberal-minded, the poison is like old habits, roundly die hard.

An opportune tirade spiked with oomph (tantalizing nudity is included), oompah (courtesy to Quincy Jones’ throbbing score and Ray Charles’ theme song) and moxie (robustly edited byHal Ashby who was received his first-and-only Oscar statuette, which might facilitate his transition to the director chair), like Stanley Kramer’s INHERIT THE WIND (1960), IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT needs to be mandatorily watched by every single human being if we were living in a perfect world, simply because there is cardinal verity in its story that no other belief can twist or garble.

referential points: Jewison’s FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (1971, 6.4/10), MOONSTRUCK (1987, 7.6/10);Stanley Kramer’s INHERIT THE WIND (1960, 7.7/10)